Sign in
Contact
Interviews
Media
Help
Hilfe (Deutsch)
Help (English)
Ayuda (Espanol)
Status
About
Upload your thesis
Search history
Search single citation
Advanced search
Home
Sign in
New here? Register
Forgot password?
Data sheet
Why reservations remain: a critical reflection about the systematic review and meta-analysis “Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain“ by Licciardone et al
Franke, H.
[69]
Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 2012/10, 16(4):411-415. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2012.05.002, type of study: ,art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Full text
(https://www.bodyworkmovementtherapies.com/article/S1360-8592(12)00159-3/fulltext)
Keywords:
acute low back pain
[15]
chronic low back pain
[52]
OMT
[3924]
osteopathic manipulative treatment
[3945]
art
[3034]
Abstract:
In 2005 John Licciardone, Angela Brimhall, and Linda King published a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with the title: Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain. The conclusions of systematic review and meta-analysis depend highly on the right search strategy, the quality of the included studies (internal validity), and the error-free, unbiased and transparent evaluation of the review. As illustrated by the following article Licciardone's review includes elements that could lead to biased results. It is concluded that Licciardone et al. focused too much on the statistical significance, and overlooked that the problem of the review lay not in the calculations but in the quality and compilation of the studies.
•
Impressum
•
Legal notice
•
Datenschutz
•
ostlib.de/data_facmbdjrkpvhzqsuwexn
Supported by
OSTLIB recommends
Home
Advanced search
Search single citation
Search history
Help
Hilfe (Deutsch)
Help (English)
Ayuda (Espanol)
Status
About
Upload your thesis
Media
Interviews
Contact
Impressum
Legal notice
Datenschutz
Sign in
Forgot password
Register / Registrierung / Inscripción